IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v31y2018ipcp326-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR

Author

Listed:
  • Van Berkel, Derek B.
  • Tabrizian, Payam
  • Dorning, Monica A.
  • Smart, Lindsey
  • Newcomb, Doug
  • Mehaffey, Megan
  • Neale, Anne
  • Meentemeyer, Ross K.

Abstract

Landscapes are increasingly recognized for providing valuable cultural ecosystem services with numerous non-material benefits by serving as places of rest, relaxation, and inspiration that ultimately improve overall mental health and physical well-being. Maintaining and enhancing these valuable benefits through targeted management and conservation measures requires understanding the spatial and temporal determinants of perceived landscape values. Content contributed through mobile technologies and the web are emerging globally, providing a promising data source for localizing and assessing these landscape benefits. These georeferenced data offer rich in situ qualitative information through photos and comments that capture valued and special locations across large geographic areas. We present a novel method for mapping and modeling landscape values and perceptions that leverages viewshed analysis of georeferenced social media data. Using a high resolution LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) derived digital surface model, we are able to evaluate landscape characteristics associated with the visual-sensory qualities of outdoor recreationalists. Our results show the importance of historical monuments and attractions in addition to specific environmental features which are appreciated by the public. Evaluation of photo-image content highlights the opportunity of including temporally and spatially variable visual-sensory qualities in cultural ecosystem services (CES) evaluation like the sights, sounds and smells of wildlife and weather phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Berkel, Derek B. & Tabrizian, Payam & Dorning, Monica A. & Smart, Lindsey & Newcomb, Doug & Mehaffey, Megan & Neale, Anne & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2018. "Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 326-335.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:326-335
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617307714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mathew E. Hauer & Jason M. Evans & Deepak R. Mishra, 2016. "Millions projected to be at risk from sea-level rise in the continental United States," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 691-695, July.
    2. Sandifer, Paul A. & Sutton-Grier, Ariana E. & Ward, Bethney P., 2015. "Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-15.
    3. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    4. Janne Artell, 2014. "Lots of value? A spatial hedonic approach to water quality valuation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(6), pages 862-882, June.
    5. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    6. Jelena Vukomanovic & Barron J. Orr, 2014. "Landscape Aesthetics and the Scenic Drivers of Amenity Migration in the New West: Naturalness, Visual Scale, and Complexity," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-24, April.
    7. Richards, Daniel R. & Tunçer, Bige, 2018. "Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 318-325.
    8. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    9. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shilun Zhang & Xiaolong Zhao & Zixi Zeng & Xuan Qiu, 2019. "The Influence of Audio-Visual Interactions on Psychological Responses of Young People in Urban Green Areas: A Case Study in Two Parks in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Broome, James David & Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2024. "Heavenly lights: An exploratory review of auroral ecosystem services and disservices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Oleksandr Karasov & Stien Heremans & Mart Külvik & Artem Domnich & Igor Chervanyov, 2020. "On How Crowdsourced Data and Landscape Organisation Metrics Can Facilitate the Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Estonian Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Gosal, Arjan S. & Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. & Václavík, Tomáš & Poulin, Brigitte & Ziv, Guy, 2019. "Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Inglis, Nicole C. & Vukomanovic, Jelena, 2020. "Climate change disproportionately affects visual quality of cultural ecosystem services in a mountain region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Nathaniel H Merrill & Sarina F Atkinson & Kate K Mulvaney & Marisa J Mazzotta & Justin Bousquin, 2020. "Using data derived from cellular phone locations to estimate visitation to natural areas: An application to water recreation in New England, USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Daisy San Martin Saldias & James McGlade, 2023. "A method for considering the evolution of the visible landscape," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 103-120, January.
    12. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Joy R. Petway & Yu-Pin Lin & Rainer F. Wunderlich, 2020. "A Place-Based Approach to Agricultural Nonmaterial Intangible Cultural Ecosystem Service Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Huai, Songyao & Chen, Fen & Liu, Song & Canters, Frank & Van de Voorde, Tim, 2022. "Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    16. Zajadacz Alina & Minkwitz Aleksandra, 2020. "Using Social Media Data to Plan for Tourism," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(3), pages 125-138, September.
    17. Sara Silva & Luís Filipe Silva & António Vieira, 2023. "Protected Areas and Nature-Based Tourism: A 30-Year Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-25, July.
    18. Isabelle King & John Martin, 2021. "Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    19. Beata Fornal-Pieniak & Agnieszka Mandziuk & Dagmara Stangierska & Stanisław Parzych & Pedro Miguel Ramos Arsénio, 2023. "Preferences of Young Adult Visitors to Manor Parks in South Poland: A Study on Ecosystem Services and Scenic Quality," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    20. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    21. Fox, Nathan & Graham, Laura J. & Eigenbrod, Felix & Bullock, James M. & Parks, Katherine E., 2021. "Enriching social media data allows a more robust representation of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    22. Zanchi, Giuliana & Brady, Mark V., 2019. "Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Havinga, Ilan & Bogaart, Patrick W. & Hein, Lars & Tuia, Devis, 2020. "Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    5. E. Seda Arslan & Ömer K. Örücü, 2021. "MaxEnt modelling of the potential distribution areas of cultural ecosystem services using social media data and GIS," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2655-2667, February.
    6. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    7. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    8. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    9. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    10. Cardoso, Ana Sofia & Renna, Francesco & Moreno-Llorca, Ricardo & Alcaraz-Segura, Domingo & Tabik, Siham & Ladle, Richard J. & Vaz, Ana Sofia, 2022. "Classifying the content of social media images to support cultural ecosystem service assessments using deep learning models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Amalia Vaneska Palacio Buendía & Yolanda Pérez-Albert & David Serrano Giné, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    13. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    17. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    19. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:326-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.